ok guys and girls

[storchy neil]

what is the difference between flyable and airworthy ?

 

this is not a trick question neil

 

 

[rgmwa]

Don't know if there's a formal definition or not, but I'd say:

 

Flyable - you can get it off the ground

 

Airworthy - it's not likely to fall apart if you do

 

Plenty of WWII examples of flyable but un-airworthy aircraft.

 

rgmwa

 

 

[Guest Escadrille]

Flyable - to a place for repair...or the next failure.. and Air worthy should be 100% reliable until the next scheduled service of the component with the least hours to run until a maintenance action must be carried out ..

 

 

[storchy neil]

thank you rgmwa and escadrille but what I was looking for is examples I/e nose wheele 30 degrees off alignment to rudder flyable not airworthy crack in leading edge of wing flyable not airworthy crack in windscreen flyable not airworthy flap indercator not working flyable not airworthy E G T not working flyable not airworthy no weight and balance not done flyable not airworthy no return line to tank on a rotax 912 flyable not airworthy hyphens left out flyable not airworthy placards not on the plane flyable not airworthy neil

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

There really is no difference....it has to be airworthy to be flyable, otherwise it stays put on the ground........Maj...

 

 

[Bandit12]

Depends on your mission too Storchy. A tumbling AH wouldn't bother me at all during the day, but if there was a night component to the flight, then it becomes a more serious issue. If all of what you described was happening, then I would be walking away.

 

 

[rgmwa]

I'd say all the examples you give could be regarded as flyable, but in no particular order either very unwise, probably OK, not recommended, illegal or various combinations of those. Just wondering what's behind the original question.

 

rgmwa

 

 

[Phil Perry]

what is the difference between flyable and airworthy ?this is not a trick question neil

ALLO NEIL. . . . .

 

Over here in Aglettere,. . . . the term "Airworthy" can only be applied to an appliance which has a current ticket from either the CAA ie, a certificate of airworthiness,. or a permit to fly. . . issued by either the British Microlight Aircraft Association, or the Light aircraft Association, delegated by the CAA.

 

The term "FLYABLE" can be applied to any piece of equipment or appliance which is capable of entering the realm we friends all know as. . . . flight, in some way shape or form. . . ..

 

I would imagine that, since Australia is not totally dissimilar to the UK in it's certification processes, that the two terms you have mentioned are fairly self explanatory.

 

Hey,. . . . . let's stay SAFE and what's more. . . . . CERTIFIED out there . . . .

 

Phil

 

 

[facthunter]

There are some pilots who should be certified but not all.

 

Aircraft may be permitted to fly for ferry purposes with far less going than for a "normal" flight. You can fly with gear extended, Aircraft not pressurised. One engine not operating, ( With 3 or more engines originally) carrying extra engines underwing, with instruments not serviceable. pitot heat inop. Yaw damper inop. Brakes blanked off. Whole list of permitted unserviceabilities They ALL have to be documented in an approved manual and the relevant conditions/limitations observed.

 

The concept of "airworthiness" might be most often related to a particular design. Fitness to fly relates to the condition of the plane. Nev

 

 

[storchy neil]

rgmwa who me write something that is has a hidden meaning

 

some of the above conditions were on a plane an L A M E L 2 L4 told a pilot that the plane was safe to fly after he had repaired it

 

the pilot did fly it but it was hard to control

 

another L A M E L2 L4 on doing a inspection grounded the plane saying

 

QUOTE the only way that this plane leaves this airfield is on a trailer or I repair it or some one else does it is not airworthy UNQUOTE

 

facthunter you are right I should be certified for flying it on what I now know

 

it will be very interesting as I now have sent photos and statements to Daran Barnfeild lets see what our leaders do about [name removed] the l2 l4 who repaired the plane [removed]

 

There really is no difference....it has to be airworthy to be flyable, otherwise it stays put on the ground........Maj...

 

spot on maj this old bloke has learnt one hell off a lesson at a great cost but if it is off some use to someone else hope so neil

 

 

[DrZoos]

Flyable able to fly eg tail dragger

 

Airworthy - worthy to be flyable eg trike

 

Just kidding

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

Most large commercial aircraft have to conform to a minimum equipment list (MEL) which list the minimum equipment that the aircraft needs to have serviceable, to be operated legally in this country. If some item on the MEL becomes U/S, the aircraft cannot fly unless a special permit is issued for it to return to a maintenance base.Most aircraft will carry some permitted unservicabilities, each flight which vary with aircraft type, and can be such minor things as coffee makers, landing lights during day only ops, or even U/s APUs if they are not an in-flight critical item. Some instruments may not be on the MEL. These permitted unservicabilities are not ment to be carried indefinitely but are often carried while the aircraft continues to operate, and until the aircraft has the opportunity to receive scheduled or unschedualed maintenance. Each aircraft types MEL list is different, and specific to that aircraft type.

 

One exception to the above that I have seen is aircraft operating into and out of Hamilton Is Qld, because of its unique location. No unservicabilities are allowed to be carried on those ops, and if the aircraft goes U/S there, it has to be repaired prior to departure..................................Maj...

 

 

[David Isaac]

I'll throw a more basic approach out there ...

 

My Auster has a 'Certificate of Airworthiness' that proves it is airworthy, but ... It is not flyable, because it has an expired maintenance release.

 

Does that throw a different approach to definition.

 

 

[storchy neil]

drzoos leaving that one alone

 

moderators any name that I personally use in this discussion have been in court so it is on public record*

 

yes david that sure did

 

my plane did have maintenance release with a lot off the defects on reply 4 but not noted on maintenance release

 

owing to a certain l2 l4 L A M E I am able to write here as he grounded my plane because what HE FOUND would had been my undoing

 

how can [name removed again] repair a plane with no makers specifation what so ever and this was stated in court

 

the l2 l4 that grounded my plane requested from the manifactor all specs and got them

 

1 yet one l2 l4 says it is airworthy

 

2 l2 l4 says it is not airworthy

 

so I go on what number one says and everything is ok

 

this where i have to draw the line go with no 1 and I fly knowing that my plane is not flying right

 

yes maj I can just see you shaking your head in the fact that I was stupid enough to fly this aircraft neil

 

*Qualified legal folk recommend to Mods that Storchie not name names on this forum. - mod xox

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Neil

 

If its on the public record then if you provide a link to it we can see what was said and what the outcome was. providing that clarity means we get to see all sides of the story, as recorded by an independent body and it likely means that Ian possibly doesn't end up on the end of a solicitors letter promising damnation and death if he doesn't desist in allowing you to continue to character assassinate (in his paid opinion!)his client ......

 

Andy

 

P.S I'm not taking sides....just thinking that this could end up in tears beyond those you have clearly already shed......

 

 

[storchy neil]

andys you are not wrong about the tears you seen what my out burst at Narromine did

 

Shepparton magestraites court neil Bradley v shepair and norm Edwards case no a12327951

 

29 nov 2012 i think my hard copy went up to raa office

 

some of our regs need a total over haul done by an independent body

 

since when can a l2 modify a gasculator must send that up to Canberra and see if they can do a fuel drain on it

 

oh I suppose putting up photos off the workman ship I mean lack of it will not go through when I learn how to get them on here when I can think straight

 

what I should have done was continued and set up a tent at temora and put on display the aircraft and the photos and how it was repaired but then I would have been banned for bringing raa in to disrepute

 

what pity I did not a certain legal bloke when the xxxxxhit the fan

 

when the pilot incommand refuses to fly the plane aint something wrong and I did own it and wont let some one else try to fly it as he doesn't want him hurt or dead neil